Estimation of the value of conservation of the Khabr National Park's natural resources from the perspective of villagers and tourists inside the park using willingness to pay

Mousapour, Shoja; Ahmadpour, Mahmoud; Kheikha, Ahmad Ali; Sasouli, Mohammad Reza; Sarani, Valiollah

doi:10.22048/rdsj.2017.46671.1504

Estimation of the value of conservation of the Khabr National Park's natural resources from the perspective of villagers and tourists inside the park using willingness to pay

Document Type : Original Research

Authors

Shoja Mousapour ¹

Mahmoud Ahmadpour ²

Ahmad Ali Kheikha ³

Mohammad Reza Sasouli ⁴

valiollah Sarani ⁵

¹ MSc of Agriculture Economics, University Zabol

² Assistant Professor Department Agriculture Economics, University Zabol

³ Associate Professor Department Agriculture Economics, University Zabol

⁴ Assistant Professor Higher education Saravan

⁵ Assistant Professor Department of Agricultural Extension, University Zabol

https://doi.org/10.22048/rdsj.2017.46671.1504

Abstract

The Khabr National Park is the most important national park that is located in the South East of the country. It benefits from a great deal of animal and plant biodiversity and climate variability that are of great importance for rural recreation. Therefore, the National Park's valuation could explain its importance to the rural people and the tourists inside the park.as well as affect the decisions of the managers. The main aim of this study is to estimate the value of protecting the natural resources of this national park. The Logit model and a dual two-part selection method was used in order to investigate the factors affecting rural people and tourists’ willingness to pay. The data needed for this research study was collected by completing questionnaires and interviews with 228 persons from local people and tourists in 2015. This activity was carried out for three months using the Cochran general formula and random sampling was used. The results showed that factors such as gender, education, previous participation in promotional classes, participation in state institutions, being a local resident and income have a positive and significant effect while age and the proposed amount have a negative and significant effect on local people's willingness to pay (WTP). The per person’s average willingness to pay is about 180 thousand Rials and the per family’s average willingness to pay is about 800 thousand Rials per month. The results show that the rural people and the tourists inside the park and other tourists place a high value on the natural resources. Therefore, it is recommended that politicians and policy-makers pay special attention to these natural resources and invest more on maintaining and improving the quality of these resources.

Keywords

Khabr National Park

Willingness to pay

Logit Model

villagers and tourists

Dual Two-Part Selection

20.1001.1.23832657.1396.4.1.8.4

Subjects

Agri Eco.

امیرنژاد، ح. 1386. برآورد ارزش حفاظتی پارک ملی گلستان با استفاده ار تمایل به پرداخت افراد. ششمین کنفرانس اقتصاد کشاورزی، 3: 188-175.

خداوردیزاده، م. حیاتی، ب. و کاوسی کلاشمی، م. 1387. برآورد ارزش تفرجی روستای توریستی کندوان آذربایجان شرقی با استفاده از روش ارزشگذاری مشروط. علوم محیطی، 4: 52-43.

امیرنژاد، ح. و رفیعی، ح. 1388. ارزش‏گذاری اقتصادی مطبوعیت محیط زیست: مطالعه موردی منطقه گردشگری جنگل عباس آباد بهشهر؛ استان مازندران. مجله علوم کشاورزی و منابع طبیعی، 16(3): 269-260.

راحلی، ح. خداوردیزاده، م. و نجفی علمدار لو، ح. 1389.برآورد ارزش تفرجی روستای بند ارومیه به روش ارزشگذاری مشروط. تحقیقات اقتصاد کشاورزی، 4: 62-49.

سازمان محیط زیست استان کرمان. 1381. مطالعه طرح مدیریت پارک ملی خبر و پناهگاه حیات وحش روچون. قابل دستیابی در: /kerman.doe.ir. آخرین دسترسی: 12/5/1395.

گلشیری اصفهانی، ز. و سرایی، م. ح. 1389. برنامهریزی راهبردی نظام زیستمحیطی روستا با تجزیه و تحلیل SOWT مطالعه موردی: بخش گندمان، شهرستان بروجن. پژوهشهای روستایی، 4: 98-73.

Bishop, J. T. 1999. Valuing forests: A Review of Method and Application in Developing Countries. International Institute for Environment and Development ( IIED), London: WC1 ODD, U.K.

Brouwer, R. 2000. Environmental value transfer: state of the art and future prospects. Ecological Economics, 32(1): 137-152.

Bateman, I. J. and Willis, K. G. 2001. Valuing Environmental Preferences: Theory and Practice of the Contingent Valuation Method in the US, EU, and Development Countries. London, UK: Oxford University Press.

Brun, F. 2002. Multi functionality of mountain forests and economic valuation. Journal Forest Policy and Economics, 4: 101-112.

Boyd, J. 2007. Nonmarket benefits of nature: What should be counted in green GDP. Journal Ecological Economics, 61(4): 716-723.

Broberg, T. and Brannund, R. 2008. On the value of large prediction in Sewedn: A regional stratified contingent valuation analysis. Environmental Management, 88: 1066-1077.

Buckley, C., Van-Rensburg, T. and Hynes, S. 2011. Recreational demand for farm commonage in Irland: A contingent valuation assessment. Land Use Policy, 26: 846-854.

Chilton, S. M. and Hutchinson, W. G. 2003. A qualitative examination of how respondents in a contingent valuation study rationalize their WTP respondents to an increase in the quantity of the environmental good. Journal of Economic Psychology, 24: 65-75.

Ciriacy – Wanerup, S. V. 1947. Capital returns from soil conservation practices. Journal of Farm Economics, 29: 1181 – 1196.

Groot, R. S., Wilson, M. A. and Boumans, R. M. J. 2002. A typology for the classification, description and valuation of ecosystem function goods and services. Ecological Economics, 41: 393-408.

Gutman, P. 2007. Ecosystem services: Foundation for a new rural-urban compact. Journal Ecological Economics, 62(3-4): 383-387.

Genius, M., Hatzaki, E., Kouromichelaki, E., Kouvakis, G., Nikiforaki, S. and Tsagarakis, K. 2008. Evaluating consumers' willingness to pay for improved potable water quality and quantity. Water Resources Management, 22(12):1825-1834.

Haab, T. C. and McConnell, K. E. 2002. Valuing Environmental and Natural Resources: the Econometrics of Non-Market Valuation. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.

Howard, B. R. and Farber, S. 2002. Accounting for the value of ecosystem services. Ecological Economic, 41:421-429.

Jianjun, J., Chong, J. and Lun, L. 2013. The economics valuation of cultivated land protection: A contingent valuation study in Wenling City, China. Landscape and Urban Planning, 119: 158-164.

Kramer, R. A. and Mercer, D. E. 1997. Valuing a global environmental goods: US residents willingness to pay to protect tropical rain forests. Land Economics, 73: 196-210.

Loomis, J. and Helfand, G. 2001. Environmental Policy Analysis for Decision Making. New York, US: Kluwer Academic.

Lehtonen, E., Kuuluvainen, J., Pouta, E., Rekola, M. and Li, C. 2003. Non-market benefits of forest conservation in southern Finland. Environmental Science and Policy, 6:195-204.

Masika, R. and Joekes, S. 1997. Environmentally sustainable development and poverty: A Gender analysis, BRIDGE (development-gender). Institute of development studies. The gender equality unit, Swedish international development cooperation agency (Sida), report, 52: 1-16.

Marta-Pedroso, C., Freitas, H. and Domingos, T. 2007. Testing for the survey mode effect on contingent valuation data quality: A case study of web based versus in-person interviews. Ecological Economics, 62: 388-398.

Turner, R. K., Morse Jones, S. and Fisher, B. 2010. Ecosystem valuation: Some principles and a partial application. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1185(1): 79-101.

Tao, Z., Yan, H. and Zhan, J. 2012. Economic valuation of forest ecosystem services in heshui watershed using contingent valuation method. Procedia Environmental sciences, 13: 2445-2450.

Venkatachalam, L. 2003. The contingent valuation method. Journal Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 24: 89-124.

Walsh, R. G., Loomis, J. B. and Gillman, R. A. 1984. Valuing option, existence, and bequest demand for wilderness. Journal Land Economic, 60: 14-29.